Thinking about getting a FE 28-70. Please advise me...

I've been shooting with my A7 for 9 months now using quite exclusively FD primes (20,24,35,50,100,135) and one MD zoom (35-70 macro) but feel sometimes fed up switching lenses for non "artistic" shots and miss some features (OSS, AF,...)
Even if I primarily shoot landscape and architecture (flickr.com/photos/iztheviz) I am seriously thinking about getting a 28-70 as a an everyday lens (should have bought it along with the body at the very beginning...was so cheap in Thailand...anyway).
I really don't want to spend more than 1000€ for the 24-70 Zeiss. Too much money and as far as I understood it is not 5x better than the kit. I say 5x cause I found a mint second-hand 28-70 for 220€.

Interested in any feedback considering the price (220 € is cheap), I know many of you tried/still have this one.

Well, it's a completely personal decision, but I bought the lens and ended up returning it. It was reasonably sharp stopped down and the OIS worked well, but the zoom range was just too dang short for a walkaround lens. Would have much preferred a 28-135 or 24-85 like on the Canons and Nikons

I have bought one as an everyday happy-go-lucky lens for when I don't have the time or inclination for manual focus. For me it's a snapshot lens and as such it lives up to my expectations. I haven't done landscapes with it but I already noticed that the corners aren't very sharp at 28mm, when zooming out they get better. I habitually set the lens at f/8 to boost the image quality. Most importantly, focussing is accurate on my A7 and my family snaps come out very well. When we were on vacation in Berlin I used the lens almost exclusively and I didn't regret it. Would I be happy with it as my only lens? Hell no, the zoom range is too restricted and the image quality's just not good enough for that.

Well thanks. Actually I don't intend to use it for anything else than a snapshot lens as you mention. I just miss some AF sometimes and for family photos I usually take my 5N along with the 16-50 kit lens to be able to do some "souvenir" shots. I just though this lens could set me free from this second body.

I picked up the kit A7 and have found the 28-70 to be a very good lens. I've compared shots using it to the Sigma 30mm (in the center) as well as put it up against the Sigma DP2 Quattro (a resolution monster comparable to the D800e). In both cases, I've been extremely happy with the resolution of the 28-70 and I found it can compete well against those two, even wide open.

My main complaints are that it is a bit slow and like van said, the zoom range isn't too long or wide. I'm glad to have it--for now. Eventually however, I will likely go for the 16-35 + a couple of primes, just because I prefer that combination of lenses.

I use the FE 28-70 purely as a casual lens and it does that job extremely well. It's sharp in the center at all apertures, though it needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 for good corners. For family shots that is perfectly acceptable to me. But with the arrival of the 16-35 I may consider selling it as that plus 55/1.8 are all I need for casual snaps.

I haven't used this lens specifically, so I'm just speaking generally, but I'd say that buying a second-hand 28-70mm is a great decision. If you haven't used any contemporary lenses, you're in for a treat. Image quality is pretty respectable, and the convenience is wonderful to have. I think that you'll be able to use it for far more serious photos than you're initially considering. I know many landscape photographers that go out with nothing more than a lower-end or midgrade APS-C DSLR and something like the Pentax 17-70mm or Nikon 16-85mm. I can only imaging that the sky's the limit with an A7 and the 28-70mm lens, which takes you to bleeding-edge full frame capability and an above-kit-lens capable piece of glass.

I know how it is with photography, as I do most of my shooting with my two Zeiss lenses, but I will happily turn to kit lenses when needed for the convenience. I know that as we as photographers become more gear-aware, it starts to feel like using anything less than a Canon 1D-X with a 70-200mm f/2.8 just won't cut it for capturing pictures of something as lightning fast as a 2-year old child in my front yard. In those instances, I go to Flickr's image pools for certain lenses to pull me back down to earth, and not to be so worried about what my supposed limits are with a lens. Some good examples, found quickly with a google search:

-The Canon 18-55mm kit lens group pool. Note how many of these stunning photos are taken with equipment as trivial as a Canon T3 or XSi, which are plasticky, bottom-end Canon APS cameras:https://www.flickr.com/groups/18-55canon/

So, sometimes it's nice to step back and follow these guys, who either don't care about their equipment's limitations, or are simply unaware of them. I often borrow a friend's 16-50mm, and it makes me want to really pick up an 18-105mm if it comes down in price. If it doesn't, then an $80 18-55mm will turn out to be a great addition to my equipment bag.

it would be good if there was a 24-105 like the canon, 70mm isnt very tele on a FF

Click to expand...

It's just about as tele as 50mm is on APS-C . . . also, nearly EVERY photojournalist, sports photographer, and wedding photographer disagrees with you, as far and away the most-used professional lenses are the various 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses. Yes, those photographers get f/2.8 throughout the range, but it still caps at the same focal length, so 70mm on the long end must be at least partially manageable.